Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feature: allow wasm-bindgen to work on emscripten targets (INCOMPLETE/RFC) #4014

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

durin42
Copy link

@durin42 durin42 commented Jul 16, 2024

We've got this wired up on our internal build system and wanted to try and get feedback before we get further. With our internal build system we've got this working end-to-end, and we're happy to do work here to make sure the right things happen with cargo including for cargo test. The question right now is: are y'all open to this landing if we're doing the work, or is this completely out of scope for what you want in the project?

(I've seen some other conversations about this in old bugs, but don't know the current direction of the project.)

Thanks!

@durin42
Copy link
Author

durin42 commented Jul 23, 2024

@daxpedda could you let me know if this is a viable direction, or something we wouldn't be able to land? Like I said, we're happy to do the work, but don't want to spend the time if emscripten support will be rejected.

@daxpedda
Copy link
Collaborator

Similar things have been discussed about WASI here as well, see #3454.

In general I'm not against Emscripten support, but I'm not particularly in favor of it either. My understanding is that it should be possible to stick with wasm32-unknown-unknown and consume Emscripten dependencies (e.g. C/C++). Anything that helps that along I'm happy to improve on. But this isn't a reason to block support, just explains the lack of driving force behind it.

On the other hand I have so little knowledge about Emscripten that I honestly would be unable to form a qualified opinion here and I'm not interested in diving into it. So this needs a different maintainer!

@daxpedda daxpedda added the needs discussion Requires further discussion label Jul 23, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs discussion Requires further discussion
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants